Glad to be of service. everyone should be able to take something away from debates. It is unfortunate that better understanding or learning in not your goal.
I have just shown you a well-documented example of how anti-abortion laws do reduce numbers in a given country before and after the law change. Poland is one of the only useful examples, because very few countries go from less to more strict. As I've also said, the estimates about pre-legal abortions in the US are wildly variable, which essentially mean they are meaningless. That does not matter to pro-abortion groups, any number that sounds good for them will be used. Regardless, you have not actually quoted any numbers, or any source to support any of those claims. If you check nation master, they have rates for a few countries. Canada is listed about half the rate of the US. That's not hard to understand, due to demographic differences we have far fewer idiots who can't keep their legs closed or make rationale choices about sex. Many crimes are likewise much higher in the US, for the same core reasons. Note the Poland rate is more than 250x lower than the US rate. In India, where abortions are legal but effectively unavailable (for a variety of cultural and political reasons) through safe legal means, the abortion rate is one of the lowest in the world. You cannot adequately compare completely different cultures in terms of abortion laws, nor other laws. If you think abortion laws make no difference, the comparison is before and after. The closest appropriate comparison I can find for latin America would be to compare rates with Cuba, which is at least with the same cultural sphere. Rates in Cuba are much higher. UK 1967 law change - same story again. It's very clear that for a given culture, where abortions are illegal they occur less often. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-cuba.html
This is ignorant drivel. Clearly you do not understand that insults are not an argument. Now you know, and you can try making one.
ANY country, including Poland, where abortion is illegal will have tourist abortions and illegal abortions. Canada's abortion is lower in spite of the fact that they have NO law prohibiting abortion. It is far from clear that illegality decreases abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html ROME, Oct. 11 A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of womens deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
Not an insult at all, merely pointed out the relevance and value of that part of your post. Clearly you can not defend it, no doubt because you are still clueless about the law.
You already made the point about tourist abortions, and I already responded to it. I'm wondering if you are actually reading my posts. As I pointed out, tourist abortions make up a very small fraction of total abortions in Poland. Accounting for tourist abortions, Poland has a far lower rate of abortions than when it was legal. You quoted the time article, but I can tell you didn't read the study. The study does not actually make the conclusion that the NYT assumes. This makes sense, as the editorial would be from the Guttamacher institute who will try to make every study say what they want. The study was evaluating rates of unsafe abortions, not rates of illegal abortions. Notably, Poland is completely ignored, as is India. Not surprising, since looking at all countries would risk violating the Guttamaher institutes pre-determined results that they were determined to find. This still changes nothing about the fact that comparing different countries is not as good as comparing abortion law changes within countries. When we look at those changes, its clear that laws make a difference. When we compared different countries its a weaker comparison because many other factors can influence the differences.
I had a post prepared with multiple links and lost it in the data processing error thingy. I'm not inclined to repeat it. I simply will say that Guttmacher is well-respected in both pro-choice and pro-life circles. Any country that has illegal abortion has tourist abortion and illegal abortion. There's plenty of info on that. There's little difference in the number of abortions in this country pre-Roe or post-Roe, and the abortion rate always fluctuates because of economic conditions.
Guttmacher is the main dispenser of pro-abortion propaganda in the nation. I can hardly see how they would be considered objective. I guess my main question is, why do they only include nations in their study that help to support their point? Something that is very telling, is that on the website they link to study about abortions in Tehran. This study notes that approximately 1/6 women seek an illegal abortion. But this number is much lower than in most free-abortion nations. Are we going to see Guttmacher talk about how restrictive abortion laws in Iran are effective in making abortion rates lower than in Europe? Not in a million years, because that is not the story they want to tell you. They want to tell you about Latin America, not Iran, not Poland etc. The bottom line is this. In the most controlled setting of the same country changing laws, abortion laws greatly reduce abortions. This is not hard to understand, as laws against pretty much anything, make that thing more costly to obtain or do, and as such reduce its incidence. Other arguments aside, the one stating they don't change numbers, is false.
It's not. I guess you think women are just meek little sheep-followers, if the law-makers (mostly men, who are limited in their understanding of pregnancy/childbirth) say no to abortion, women wouldn't think of disobeying, LOL. Abortion has been illegal for over a hundred years in our history, and women had them anyway. And they will continue to have them since it would be a great deal easier to get them and also safer than it was when previously illegal.
I'm sure they would think of it. But less would do it, just like with other things that are illegal. This is common sense. Further, I've clearly demonstrated with reliable, sourced examples that this in fact occurs. You have not demonstrated otherwise, apart from studies that do not even compared the same populations. Such a study comparing something like medical treatment A vs B, would immediately be discredited. People have done all kinds of bad things for thousands of years, legal or illegal. That's neither news, nor a reason to endorse it.
If that were as simple as that why not use the abortion statistics of the Vatican? Reality remains that attempting to use simple statistical figures will not yield accurate information. The easiest argument for that is the fact that Canada has comparable abortion rates to the US if not lower and ha no abortion laws.
Are the abortion statistics in the Vatican of some significance? Canada and the US are different places. They also have very different crime rates for similar reasons, as I've previously addressed. Regardless, the best comparison is the same population under different laws. That is obviously the most controlled situation for other variables. Pro-abortion groups do not want to look at that, because it does not tell them what they want to hear on the issue of frequency.
Evidence indicates that Poland's government reports are inaccurate. There was no attempt to assess underground abortion or tourist abortion. One German doctor said 600 tourist abortions were performed last year in his offices alone. http://www.federa.org.pl/dokumenty_pdf/publikacje/antiabortion-law-poland-report.pdf http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,723902,00.html
Yes, why would it not be? Why is Poland more significant that the Vatican? More importantly, you are cherry picking raw data that suits your position while accusing others of the same when it does not. It is called hypocrisy and has nothing to do with the Hippocratic oath. No (*)(*)(*)(*), really? They must be populated by different king of humans then? No, it is not unless you can demonstrate that the effect is caused by the law and not, as in the case of Poland a return to fundamental Catholic values that were no prevalent during the previous Communist regime. No, it is not for the reasons already mentioned. No, anti-choice people like to skew information so they can impose their view on society.
Estimates are about a million a year, so you're not too far off. http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Numbrs.htm
This unfortunately is the job of your local state elected officials. Here in MA, it took the paper publicizing the names of well connected deadbeat dads to get the legislature to act. I know the government collecting money isn't an impossibility. Perhaps we could tweak the law so your state gets a 5% cut of the child support bill. You can bet they would track down the deadbeats from anywhere.
Well if Eileen says so plus it's on the internet, who can question that, right? But how do you explain that our national population keeps growing and healthcare improves but we as a nation keep posting an abortion number equal to 1933, where's the progress? Taking you at your word, 1933 saw about a third (rounding) of the national population we have today conversely pro-abortion stats would have a 1933 population/abortion ratio that is three times what it is today, musta had an abortionist on every corner and in every alley back then. So people must have decided to abort their unborn children less because it became legal to abort them, just as people drink less or gamble less now that it is legal? So if you want people to use something less make it legal? If machine guns didn't require a tax stamp and prohibitive automatic rifle laws were struck down less people would have one yes? If laws requiring a background check to purchase a firearm were repealed people would purchase less firearms? If you want teenagers to not drink alcoholic beverages repeal the age requirement to purchase beer/whiskey? If you want less people driving drunk on our roadways repeal the drunk driving laws? Interesting logic. I know I'm just scratching at the surface here but I do struggle to believe (perhaps more from a moral stance) that more than a million unborn were purposely killed each and every year in the forty years prior to Roe vs. Wade.
Too bad for your struggles, estimates are that approximately a million abortions a year occurred in this country. Certainly, criminalization has done nothing in other countries to lessen abortion numbers. If you want to change abortion numbers, something must be done to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies, i.e. increased education, more readily available and easily affordable contraceptives, etc. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...k.id=d0e373&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress Some late-nineteenth-century doctors believed there were two million abortions a year.[8] In 1904, Dr. C. S. Bacon estimated that "six to ten thousand abortions are induced in Chicago every year." As one physician remarked in 1911, "Those who apply for abortions are from every walk of life, from the factory girl to the millionaire's daughter; from the laborer's wife to that of the banker, no class, no sect seems to be above . . . the destruction of the fetus."[9] As early-twentieth-century reformers investigated abortion, they produced and preserved knowledge of the business. Their reports, themselves evidence of the growing scrutiny of female sexual and reproductive behavior, show that a significant segment of the female population had abortions. A study of ten thousand working-class clients of Margaret Sanger's birth control clinics in the late 1920s found that 20 percent of all pregnancies had been intentionally aborted. Surveys of educated, middle-class women in the 1920s showed that 10 to 23 percent had had abortions.[10] Anecdotal information, patient histories collected at maternity and birth control clinics, and mortality data show that women of every racial and religious group had abortions.[11] A more comprehensive survey conducted by Regine K. Stix of almost one thousand women who went to the birth control clinic in the Bronx in 1931 and 1932 found that 35 percent of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish clients alike had had at least one illegal abortion.[12] By the 1930s, Dr. Frederick J. Taussig, a St. Louis obstetrician and nationally recognized authority on abortion, estimated that there were at least 681,000 abortions per year in the United States
Education? Sounds like sacred work for Planned Parenthood, but don't hold your breath as it will cut into their war on unborn children business. Two million abortions in 1933? But I'd sure like to apply the logic (people use legal services/products less than when criminalized) to gun laws, it would certainly make for a safer America.
Planned Parenthood does a lot of sex education already. They provide a lot of low cost and free birth control to PREVENT abortions. Laws criminalizing certain actions are only effective if a consensus of people support those laws. Also the laws have to be enforceable, i.e. law enforcement officers must be able to catch people breaking the law and provide evidence in court, and that is not the case with abortion. Abortion numbers fluctuate with economic conditions. Lots of abortions were performed in the '30s.
"Sex education" - You are much more trusting of a billion dollar company than me. Sounds like they're just trying to drum up business. Excerpt from a typical lesson: "Don't worry about sex, it's wonderful. If you screw up and get pregnant, we're here to help. Taxpayers will be happy to pay if you can't afford it..."
